Early versus the traditional start of oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nil by mouth is considered the standard of care during the first days following esophagectomy. However, with the routine implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery, early oral intake is more likely to be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of early oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated as the effect sizes for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with a total of 1947 patients were included. Length of hospital stay (WMD = - 3.94, CI: - 4.98 to - 2.90; P < 0.001), the time to first flatus (WMD = - 1.13, CI: - 1.25 to - 1.01; P < 0.001) and defecation (WMD = - 1.26, CI: - 1.82 to - 0.71; P < 0.001) favored the early oral intake group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (OR = 1.23, CI: 0.45 to 3.36; P = 0.69). Early oral intake also did not increase the risk of pneumonia and overall postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates early oral intake following esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective. It may be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, more high-quality studies are still needed to further validate this conclusion.

Subxiphoid versus intercostal video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung resection: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To systematically evaluate the safety and advantages of subxiphoid approach video-assisted thoracic surgery (SA-VATS) compared with intercostal approach video-assisted thoracic surgery (IA-VATS) for lung resection, we conducted a meta-analysis of the current literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 934 patients were included. Compared with patients in the IA-VATS group, those in the SA-VATS group had lower pain scores on the day of the operation and at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after the operation (p < .001) and suffered from less postoperative paraesthesia at the first, third and sixth months after the operation (p < .001). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, drainage amount, or chest tube duration. However, SA-VATS had a longer operative time (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SA-VATS is a safe surgical technique and has superior postoperative outcomes over IA-VATS for lung resection in terms of acute postoperative pain and chronic postoperative paraesthesia.

Esophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy as initial treatment for clinical stage I esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy are commonly used in the treatment of stage I esophageal cancer (EC). The present study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. METHODS: This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020197203). Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database inception to June 30, 2020. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was employed to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was employed to compare treatment-related death, complications, and tumor recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 13 non-randomized controlled studies involving 3,346 patients were included. Compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy, esophagectomy showed an improved OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.86; P < 0.001), PFS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001), and a lower risk of tumor recurrence (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.61; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75-1.65; P = 0.60) and treatment-related death (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.31-4.30; P = 0.84) between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows esophagectomy has superior survival benefits as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. It is still the preferred choice for patients with clinical stage I EC. However, future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this conclusion.

A Meta-analysis of Jejunostomy Versus Nasoenteral Tube for Enteral Nutrition Following Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nutritional therapy is of paramount importance for patients undergoing esophagectomy. The jejunostomy and nasoenteral tube are the popular routes for nutritional therapy. However, which one is the preferred route is unclear. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and efficacy of the two routes for nutritional therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE (till September 17, 2020) were searched. The primary outcome was postoperative pneumonia. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stays (LOS), bowel obstruction, catheter dislocation, anastomotic leakage, overall postoperative complications, and postoperative albumin. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies involving a total of 1,531 patients in the jejunostomy group and 1,375 patients in the nasoenteral tube group were included. Compared with patients in the nasoenteral tube group, those in the jejunostomy group had a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.68, P < 0.001), shorter LOS (WMD = -0.85, P < 0.001), and lower risk of catheter dislocation (OR = 0.15, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.84, P = 0.43), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.87, P = 0.59), and postoperative albumin (WMD = -0.40, P = 0.24). However, patients in the jejunostomy group had a higher risk of bowel obstruction (OR = 8.42, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Jejunostomy for enteral nutrition showed superior outcomes in terms of postoperative pneumonia, LOS, and catheter dislocation. Jejunostomy may be the preferred enteral nutritional route following esophagectomy.

Is it necessary to routinely perform feeding jejunostomy at the time of esophagectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is a routine procedure at the time of esophagectomy in some centers. With the widespread popularization of enhanced recovery after surgery, the necessity of FJ has been increasingly questioned. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and effectiveness between with (FJ group) or without (no-FJ group) performing FJ at the time of esophagectomy. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were overall postoperative complications, postoperative pneumonia, intestinal obstruction, and weight loss at 3 and 6 months after esophagectomy. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis. About 12 studies comprising 2,173 patients were included. The FJ group had a longer LOS (WMD = 2.05, P = 0.01) and a higher incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR = 11.67, P < 0.001) than the no-FJ group. The incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR = 1.24, P = 0.31) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.43, P = 0.13) were not significantly different, nor the weight loss at 3 months (WMD = 0.58, P = 0.24) and 6 months (P > 0.05) after esophagectomy. Current evidence suggests that routinely performing FJ at the time of esophagectomy appears not to generate better postoperative outcomes. FJ may need to be performed selectively rather than routinely. More studies are required to further verify.